Is Big Bang Real Scientific Theory?

Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Matt Silberstein"
wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:50:49 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
in
wrote:

"Matt Silberstein"
wrote in
message ...
On 22 Oct 2006 20:44:52 -0700, in alt.atheism , "steve"
in
.com
wrote:

snipped

The answers are *not* wrong. North is not a
geographically limited concept, it is a geographically
determined direction. And the "north pole" is
a *pole* precisely because it is a *magnetic*
pole to which the Earth's magnetic field is
oriented. And that magnetic field does in
fact extend *north* of the north pole.

snipped again
Google magnetic declination and educate yourself.
Peter

Matt Silberstein wrote:

:North, however, does not mean "towards the axis. If it did we would
:have trouble differentiating between north and south. North means
:towards the point on the sphere where the axis of rotation intersects
:the sphere.

Well, no. North means positive from the Earth's center along the
North/South axis.

:Your comment on dimensionality is a good step: now realize
:that "north" does refer to a two dimensional issue.

Well, no. Even in a 'local level' coordinate system north refers to a
direction 3D space and that direction goes on forever.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:50:51 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred J. McCall
in
wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

:North, however, does not mean "towards the axis. If it did we would
:have trouble differentiating between north and south. North means
:towards the point on the sphere where the axis of rotation intersects
:the sphere.

Well, no. North means positive from the Earth's center along the
North/South axis.

No it does not. North means a direction on the surface. By your notion
if I am standing on the Equator then north towards the center of the
Earth just slightly ??? What is that direction?


:Your comment on dimensionality is a good step: now realize
:that "north" does refer to a two dimensional issue.

Well, no. Even in a 'local level' coordinate system north refers to a
direction 3D space and that direction goes on forever.

Not by any usage I have ever seen. Imagine you are standing 10 feet
from the North Pole facing it. What direction is north? Is it forward
or up? Now imagine 5 feet away. Now 1. At what point does north stop
being forward and suddenly become up?



--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Better still, if standing on the south pole, which direction is north?
By one definition above, it's straight through the sphere, through the
center of the earth, and up and out the north pole and on forever.

By another definition, when standing at the south pole, its any
direction you care to pick, as long as it is tangential to the surface
of the globe. However, that tangent extends forever.

By a third definition, it is a limit-approaching-zero, left-hand-rule
vector on the surface of the globe pointing orthogonal to the line of
global rotation (which would keep it on the surface of the globe), a
vector that would have no meaning at the north pole, though delta-zero
away from the pole itself it would still have meaning.

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:

:North, however, does not mean "towards the axis. If it did we would
:have trouble differentiating between north and south. North means
:towards the point on the sphere where the axis of rotation intersects
:the sphere.

Well, no. North means positive from the Earth's center along the
North/South axis.

Wouldn't north be better defined as being a line perpendicular to the
earth's equator (axis) that when looking at the earth it rotates in a
clockwise (left direction? Isn't that true north vs. magnetic north
(your definition) which is different?

And as you like to say: Astronomy, get some...


:Your comment on dimensionality is a good step: now realize
:that "north" does refer to a two dimensional issue.

Well, no. Even in a 'local level' coordinate system north refers to a
direction 3D space and that direction goes on forever.

North can exist in both 2D and 3D. Ever look at a regular Rand-McNally
map? North, the direction with a big N and and arrow. Same thing with
X-Y coordinates vs. X-Y-Z. In both cases north is typically the
direction toward the of the Y axis.

Gees McClod, did you flunk navigation in the Navy or something?

Eric

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:12:42 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Dennis L.
McKiernan" in
wrote:

Better still, if standing on the south pole, which direction is north?
By one definition above, it's straight through the sphere, through the
center of the earth, and up and out the north pole and on forever.

Have you ever seen anyone use that meaning? I haven't. By that
definition the Equator is not directly north of the South Pole.

By another definition, when standing at the south pole, its any
direction you care to pick, as long as it is tangential to the surface
of the globe. However, that tangent extends forever.

Have you ever seen anyone use that meaning? I haven't. Again the
Equator is no longer north of the South Pole.

By a third definition, it is a limit-approaching-zero, left-hand-rule
vector on the surface of the globe pointing orthogonal to the line of
global rotation (which would keep it on the surface of the globe), a
vector that would have no meaning at the north pole, though delta-zero
away from the pole itself it would still have meaning.

Yep, that's the one. The one people actually use (though in a less
mathematical form).


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:56:57 GMT, in a place far, far away, Matt
Silberstein made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:12:42 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Dennis L.
McKiernan" in
wrote:

Better still, if standing on the south pole, which direction is north?
By one definition above, it's straight through the sphere, through the
center of the earth, and up and out the north pole and on forever.

Have you ever seen anyone use that meaning? I haven't. By that
definition the Equator is not directly north of the South Pole.

By another definition, when standing at the south pole, its any
direction you care to pick, as long as it is tangential to the surface
of the globe. However, that tangent extends forever.

Have you ever seen anyone use that meaning? I haven't. Again the
Equator is no longer north of the South Pole.

Nope. I think Fred invented it all by himself.

Dennis L. McKiernan wrote:
Better still, if standing on the south pole, which direction is north?
By one definition above, it's straight through the sphere, through the
center of the earth, and up and out the north pole and on forever.

By another definition, when standing at the south pole, its any
direction you care to pick, as long as it is tangential to the surface
of the globe. However, that tangent extends forever.

By a third definition, it is a limit-approaching-zero, left-hand-rule

Oops! _Right-hand-rule_ (index finger pointing in direction of
rotation, middle finger pointed toward center of the earth, thumb
pointing north).

vector on the surface of the globe pointing orthogonal to the line of
global rotation (which would keep it on the surface of the globe), a
vector that would have no meaning at the north pole, though delta-zero
away from the pole itself it would still have meaning.

Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:12:42 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Dennis L.
McKiernan" in
wrote:

Better still, if standing on the south pole, which direction is north?
By one definition above, it's straight through the sphere, through the
center of the earth, and up and out the north pole and on forever.

Have you ever seen anyone use that meaning? I haven't. By that
definition the Equator is not directly north of the South Pole.

No. I have never seen anyone use that method except in one of the
messages above.


By another definition, when standing at the south pole, its any
direction you care to pick, as long as it is tangential to the surface
of the globe. However, that tangent extends forever.

Have you ever seen anyone use that meaning? I haven't. Again the
Equator is no longer north of the South Pole.

Nope, I have never seen anyone use that definition except as posted in
one of the messages above.


By a third definition, it is a limit-approaching-zero, left-hand-rule
vector on the surface of the globe pointing orthogonal to the line of
global rotation (which would keep it on the surface of the globe), a
vector that would have no meaning at the north pole, though delta-zero
away from the pole itself it would still have meaning.

Yep, that's the one. The one people actually use (though in a less
mathematical form).


Yeah, this is the one, except I screwed up. It's really a "right hand
rule," as explained in my "Oops!" message above.

---Dennis

Dennis L. McKiernan wrote:
Dennis L. McKiernan wrote:
Better still, if standing on the south pole, which direction is north?
By one definition above, it's straight through the sphere, through the
center of the earth, and up and out the north pole and on forever.

By another definition, when standing at the south pole, its any
direction you care to pick, as long as it is tangential to the surface
of the globe. However, that tangent extends forever.

By a third definition, it is a limit-approaching-zero, left-hand-rule

Oops! _Right-hand-rule_ (index finger pointing in direction of
rotation, middle finger pointed toward center of the earth, thumb
pointing north).

Are you sure you didn't just flip us the bird?


vector on the surface of the globe pointing orthogonal to the line of
global rotation (which would keep it on the surface of the globe), a
vector that would have no meaning at the north pole, though delta-zero
away from the pole itself it would still have meaning.